RAJIV ROY, J. -
(1.)The appellant, Bihar Public Service Commission (henceforth for short 'the BPSC') Patna, has preferred these two appeals through its Chairman for setting aside the common order and judgment dtd. 23/8/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh) in C.W.J.C. No. 10649 of 2021 (Utpal Kant and Others Vs. The Bihar Public Service Commisison and Others) and analogous cases by which the writ petitions preferred by the respondents- petitioners were allowed with a direction to 'the BPSC' to publish a revised result of the preliminary test of successful candidates (relating to Advertisement No. 01/2020 for 553 posts of Assistant Prosecution Officer) without invoking the resolution of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar (henceforth for short 'the Department') issued vide memo no. 2374 dtd. 16/7/2007 which was not mentioned in the advertisement so far as the preliminary test is concerned.
(2.)The matrix of facts leading to the present appeal is/are as follows :-
(3.)'The BPSC' came out with an Advertisement No. 01/2020 for appointment on 553 posts of Assistant Prosecution Officers (henceforth for short 'the APO') Competitive Examination, 2019 on 6/2/2020 It is essential to incorporate the advertisement no. 01/2020:
JUDGEMENT_87_LAWS(PAT)7_2022_1.JPG
JUDGEMENT_87_LAWS(PAT)7_2022_2.JPG
JUDGEMENT_87_LAWS(PAT)7_2022_3.JPG
JUDGEMENT_87_LAWS(PAT)7_2022_4.JPG
JUDGEMENT_87_LAWS(PAT)7_2022_5.JPG
JUDGEMENT_87_LAWS(PAT)7_2022_6.JPG